nudes?

I find much beauty in nude photography. And yes it is sexual and sensual. Unless you lie to yourself which many people do. So what is wrong with photographing a woman or man without clothes on? We are born this way. Are we ashamed? If you start drooling over nudes then you have a problem you might want to work on but if you just enjoy the senual nature of a nude, so what. I love smooth skin and pert little breasts. And nice legs. Pretty natural and healthy to like it. Pretty natural.

I'm convinced. I'll have two, please.<p>

A large portion of our society just stops at the "sexual" aspect and

never pregresses beyond and into the "art" aspect which takes some

higher thinking. If everyone was a physician, we'd have a lot more

appreciation of the Nude as art instead of the Nude as just sexual.

James...it sounds a bit like you're trying to convince yourself or

get us to say it's ok. Hey, just go for it.

James, who said anything was wrong with it? Not here, I don't think.

 

<p>

 

However, I like photographing women with their clothes on. There's

something about clothing that can say so much, at least for me. Too

many nude shots look like they are way too posed (I was going to

say "stiff" but thought better of it) and like the guy that was

photographing was way too excited to think about the end result.

As far as "clothed" women and being just as sensual, sexual, I think

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/402967">this

photograph by Lou Verruto</a> is a stunning example.<p>

And <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/399535">this

photograph by Filipe Silva</a> is another good example.

I think you're preaching to the choir here, but I'd go further and say

that there's nothing wrong with enjoying the sexual nature of photos

(whether nude or clothed). I find that most nude photos that treat

the body as just a landscape are quite dull and, in some sense,

actually diminish the subject. It's not just a lump of clay, or a

mountain, or a bowl of apples, it's a body!! An actual living person!

Yet some photographers seem to go out of their way to make a nude

body seem as lifeless and sexless as possible, apparently out of some

bizarre notion that if it's sexual, it's not Art.<P>

I'd agree that the sensuality and sexuality evident in a photo have no

direct relationship to the amount of skin showing, except perhaps as

the state of undress reflects a context with sexual overtones. I

propose that, in the photo below, the likely interpretation would be

quite different if she were wearing pants.<P>

<img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/reneewindow2.jpg">

<i>I find that most nude photos that treat the body as just a

landscape are quite dull and, in some sense, actually diminish the

subject. It's not just a lump of clay, or a mountain, or a bowl of

apples, it's a body!! An actual living person! Yet some photographers

seem to go out of their way to make a nude body seem as lifeless and

sexless as possible, apparently out of some bizarre notion that if

it's sexual, it's not Art.</i><p>

 

I sure agree to this, I guess you <i>are</i>preaching to the choir.

When I think "nude," that is usually what I think of. That or really

cheesy pinup shots. But yours have a lot of character.<p>

 

I find that Bravo's nudes are really interesting, definitely worth

checking out.

I was just wondering why there aren't any women responding to this forum? It would be quite interesting to get their feedback on nude photography and see if they have similar views on whether nudes are not just erotic...

 

we all know what a male wants. we don't REALLY know what a female wants...

 

this is not to say that nude photography can't be appreciated. i do appreciate it without drooling over it.

 

why does society still find nudes to only be erotic and therefore to be censored?